Proceeds of crime or free speech?

Schapelle Corby has been a staple of news diets for almost a decade, but interest in her case exploded over the past week, with a fast-tracked telemovie giving us a refresher just days before she was released on bail before a frenzied media pack outside Kerobokan jail.

There is obviously a lot of money to be made from this story; if the rumours are true, some believe it is worth paying up to $3 million for an exclusive interview.

This doesn't sit right with a lot of people. Responding to rumours that his own network had stumped up the cash, Sunrise host David Koch slammed the decision on-air, saying, "I totally disagree with paying a convicted drug smuggler $2 million."

Among those congratulating his stance was Treasurer Joe Hockey:

Well done @kochie_online ! It sends all the wrong messages on drugs for a convicted trafficker to be paid for her story.

The good news for Kochie and Hockey (and most of our readers, if our poll on this issue is any indicator) is that Corby may never see any of this money. According to ABC Fact Check, the Federal Government has a solid chance of confiscating any earnings through Commonwealth proceeds of crime laws, though there could be complications arising from payments being made in Indonesia.

But is there a case for letting Schapelle Corby keep the money?

Australia has had this debate before. When David Hicks released a memoir of his time as a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay in 2010, the profits were briefly frozen after the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions launched a proceeds of crime case (the case was later dropped).

Writing at the time, Drum columnist Chris Berg argued that Hicks was being treated unfairly, and that proceeds of crime laws amounted to an attack on free speech:

There's absolutely no question if a court convicts a bank robber they shouldn't be able to keep the loot as a nest egg for when they get out of jail. In that case, the stolen money is a direct result of the crime.

By contrast, literary proceeds of crime aren't really "proceeds of crime" at all. Trading off the notoriety you gain from robbing a bank is not the same as living large on the bank's money once you get out of jail.

In fact it's quite the opposite: writing a book is an entirely legal endeavour. In fact, it's an admirable one. Any profits gained are gained honestly - writing a book is a lot of work. And if the book sells, it implies consumers have gained something from it. A profitable book is a net benefit to society, regardless of the history of the author.

No surprise: people like reading about the crooked lives of others.

When the Attorney General's Department looked at the proceeds of crime law in the late 1990s, it sensibly pointed out confiscating literary profits provides no deterrent against committing crime in the first place. It would be a very farsighted criminal who broke the law in order to write a successful book about it decades later.

Instead the department argued a more convincing basis for the measure was unjust enrichment.

Yes, it seems somewhat unfair a criminal might get a heftier book deal than the victim of their crime perhaps would.

But that sense of unfairness is not a stable enough foundation on which to limit free speech.

We'd like to get your thoughts on this. Do you think proceeds of crime laws infringe on free speech? Why do you think Schapelle Corby should or shouldn't be able to make money from a media deal?